At times in Christian thought, the priorities of pure doctrine and passionate mission have been perceived as opposites on a spectrum where emphasis on one results in neglect of the other, but without one, the other is deficient and doomed to crumble. Mission without doctrine is like a body without a skeleton, but apart from mission, doctrine is like dry bones in a museum. A Lutheran Reformission maintains a dual emphasis, resulting in doctrinal missions as well as missional doctrine.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Q: Does the Bible allow for
polygamy? If a Christian man lived in a
country where it is legal, would it be
acceptable for him to marry multiple wives?

Polygamy can be a challenging
question for students of the Bible.
After all, there are numerous examples of polygamous marriage throughout
the Old Testament some of which involve men who would undoubtedly be considered
heroes of the faith—Jacob, David, Solomon, and Gideon.

Unlike divorce, which has clear
guidelines in the New Testament about if/when it might be acceptable, polygamy
has no such mention. Very likely, this
is because it was not a topic of debate among the Jews of the time or among
early Christians, but there is no New Testament command explicitly allowing or
forbidding a man from marrying more than one wife.

However, the Bible clearly does not
envision polygamy as God’s design. In
the beginning, Genesis records that God creates one man and one woman, and not
a man with multiple wives. On numerous
occasions, Jesus affirms the statement from Genesis following the creation of
woman, that “for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and cling
to his own wife,” using it as the foundational principle for his other
statements about marriage and sexuality.

In the Old Testament, even though God
distributes robust punishments for various sexual sins (the Sodom and Gomorrah
incident, David and Bathsheba, etc.) he does not do the same for polygamy,
perhaps indicating a different degree to polygamy than to other sexual sins,
much like hatred and murder or gossip and lying under oath bring different
degrees of earthly consequences even though variations on the same sin.

At the same time, the Old Testament’s
example never portrays a polygamous family with good outcomes. Jealousy overshadows Jacob’s household. Abraham’s taking of Hagar as a concubine had
violent consequences which are still being felt between his sons’ descendants
in the Middle East to this day, and Solomon was led horribly astray as a result
of his numerous marriage partners.

In both Testaments, the marriage
commands and advice that are given relating to married life, such as in
Proverbs and Ephesians, are always given in singular terms, certainly
indicating a preference for monogamy. The
New Testament also demands monogamy on two occasions when giving qualifications
for pastoral service. This seems to
indicate not only a preference for monogamy, but also a command for monogamy
among all Christians. This is because
all other items on the list of pastoral qualifications are also true for
Christians in general. The difference
between pastors and Christians in general is not that pastors must obey
additional laws, but rather that certain sins (such as poor parenting, or
drunkenness), while sinful regardless of who commits them, are grounds for
disqualification for the pastoral office.

Finally, the Bible draws a clear
connection between the marriage relationship and the relationship between
Christ and the Church. Monogamous
marriage reflects this relationship in that there is one Christ and one Church
which includes believers of every nation, race, and denomination (not one
church with several saviors or one savior with several Churches). Other variations on a marriage relationship
fail to reflect this reality, because their participants do not match with
their counterparts in the Christ-Church relationship.

Although the Bible lacks a direct
statement that “Thou shalt not engage in polygamy,” there seems to be plentiful
evidence, that polygamy is, at the very least, discouraged and less than ideal,
but also a convincing argument that, linked to the commandment “You shall not
commit adultery,” polygamy is unacceptable in all cases for Christians.

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Q: How do Christians resolve the
idea of evolution with the Bible’s account of creation in Genesis? Is it possible to reconcile these two ideas
or much one choose between them?

Soon after Charles Darwin published
his ideas of natural selection, Christians began to contemplate how it should
be received in light of the Genesis creation account and to formulate responses
to this new theory.

Some Christians ardently objected to
the contradiction, preferring the Genesis account, refusing to even study or evaluate
evolutionary theory in light of its disagreement with Scripture’s record. Others simply accepted the evolutionary
proposition as fact, disregarding the Biblical account as myth or symbolism in
the process.

Later, some arose who attempted to
reconcile the two in a concept called Theistic Evolution. This attempt accepts the premise of species,
even man, occurring by means of evolution, but gives God the credit for
orchestrating the process.

All of the responses mentioned so far
have their difficulties, though: For
Christians to simply disregard scientific research is problematic, because it
gives the appearance of anti-intellectualism and drives Christians to mere
belief that lacks a factual foundation.
For Christians to uncritically adopt a scientific position that forces
them to disregard Scripture is also problematic, because it leaves no reason to
affirm anything in Scripture as true, and ultimately no reason to continue as a
Christian.

Theistic Evolution likewise has
inconsistencies which make it an unsatisfying option for the Christian. However, this is not primarily because, as it
might appear on the surface, that it casts doubt on the Bible as a “literal”
source of spiritual truth. This is a
concern, but not the most significant problem.
Instead, the foundational problem with theistic evolution is that it abandons
a single human couple as the parents of all humanity—and therefore undermines
the foundational concepts of salvation and sin in Christianity.

If God guided the process of
evolution so as to produce humanity rather than creating man as a distinct act,
then one must discern exactly which generation marked the transition from a
former species (lacking an immortal, spiritual, existence; not accountable to
God for actions) to humanity (having an immortal soul and accountable to God
for actions).

Likewise, there would be multiple
pairs of humans giving rise to the human species rather than a single set of
parents, forcing the conclusion that not all people inherit sin from Adam and
therefore could be spiritually good, or at least spiritually neutral, and thus
not in need of salvation for sin.

In contrast, the Apostle Paul, in
Romans 5 attributes human sinfulness to our common descent from Adam, and
portrays Jesus as the perfect man who causes a reversal of Adam’s sin and gifts
righteousness to humanity by taking the place of Adam and all his descendants
in death.

Apart from a single set of human
parents, sin is not universally attributed to all humanity, and more importantly,
sin cannot be collectively forgiven by Jesus’ substitution—thus undermining the
foundational idea of all Christianity and rendering the religion of no value,
because it could offer neither full forgiveness nor complete assurance to
man.

A reasonable path in dealing with
evolution as a Christian seems to be to affirm Darwin’s observable and
repeatable explanations of change within species (called micro-evolution) while
denying his unobservable, unrepeatable proposal of evolution across species (called
macro-evolution).

Although remaining space does not
allow much elaboration in this edition, modern research is indicating numerous
instances where evolution does not adequately explain many natural phenomena,
and while science cannot tell us who is responsible, it is becoming more and
more evident with the passage of time that nature shows evidence of
design. As a result, exclusive
evolutionists are declining in number in younger generations of scientists and
other explanations are being sought as to the source of this design,
particularly regarding the complex structures of the human body.

It is ultimately unwise and
inappropriate for Christians to pose an adversarial relationship between
science and faith, because it does justice to neither. At the same time, it is not necessary for
Christians to attempt to compromise between the two. Instead, Christians affirm well-researched
science and its conclusions, while questioning agenda-driven or poorly
considered theories. In doing so, it
becomes evident with the passage of time that the Bible and modern research
actually agree and science ultimately affirms the claims of Scripture.

Lutheranism is more than a cultural identity or a denominational label. In fact, this cultural and institutional baggage may be the primary obstacle in Lutheranism’s path.

To be a Lutheran is not dependent on a code of behavior or a set of common customs. Instead, to be a Lutheran is to receive Jesus in His Word, Body, and Blood for the forgiveness of sins in the Divine Service; and to be bearers of this pure Truth to a broken world corrupted with sin, death, and every lie of the devil and man’s own sinful heart.

While the false and misleading ideas of human religious invention are appealing to sin-blinded minds, they fail when exposed to the realities of life. It is tragic when souls are led to confusion and despair because of the false religious ideas with which they are surrounded. The Biblical doctrine taught by the Apostles and restored at the Reformation holds answers which are relevant regardless of time or place and offers assurance of forgiven sins and eternal life who all who believe its message.

I am a husband, a father, the pastor of St. John’s Lutheran Church (LCMS) in Burt, IA, and track chaplain at Algona Raceway.